Interesting... if that were the U.S. fighting to retake Washington D.C. from some interior rebel force, it seems like we would want to say "U.S. fights to retake capital" or "U.S. fights insurgents to secure capital" or some such other title where it's clear that the territory is the legitimate property of the Government that owns it. Amazing that a 'News Organization' can claim to report NEWS and not EDITORIAL when they make such blatantly biased statements in the very TITLE of the article. Further on in the article, Voice of America reports that
"Feltman also accused Iran of supplying Syria with weapons, backing charges by Western officials that. Tehran is providing funds, arms and intelligence support to Assad in his bid to crush the opposition. Syrian rebels also say the Islamic Republic has sent Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah fighters to Syria."
but earlier in the article VoA says
"In Ankara, Turkish and U.S. officials are holding their first "operational planning" meeting aimed at bringing about the end of Assad's embattled regime. Thursday's deliberations are expected to coordinate military, intelligence and political responses to the Syrian crisis."
Notice the differnece between language like "accused, charges, crush the opposition" and "bringing about the end of... regime" Pretty huge difference.
It's OK for the U.S. and it's 'allies' in the U.N. to plan BOMBING campaigns and other military action to aid the rebel forces, but not OK for a clearly dominated military power in Iran to help its allies?
I mean, I'm not necessarily in favor of the Assad government, don't get me wrong, but I'm not necessarily in favor of a Sunni Muslim government either. And I'm all for countries dealing with their own civil wars internally. It's absolutely ridiculous that in one paragraph the VoA 'News' organization can implicitly SUPPORT foreign intervention on behalf of the rebels, but almost EXPLICITLY condemn foreign intervention on behalf of the previously internationally recognized government. They don't even pretend to be unbiased, citing multiple cases of 'humanitarian violations' by the Syrian Government, but citing NO violations by the rebels, implying, thereby, that there ARE none, which can hardly be the case in war. Also, laying the blame for the condition of the people of the country solely at the feet of the Syrian Government, forgetting that, without the rebels, there would be no war, be no refugee situation, and be no war-like increase in humanitarian necessity.